Labour leadership: Result will be announced on 4 April [Post #1698]

By no longer being members of the Labour Party, these breakways will not have access to the Labour grassroots organisations, Constituency Labour Parties, and all that it entails. They won't even have any local constituency offices and facilities to start off with.

The CLP's will just elect new candidates, and sure they will lose many voters, but at the same time, there are many voters who vote for Labour regardless of who the candidate is. That's why they're called 'safe seats' and why, historically, both Conservatives and Labour leaderships 'parachute' friends and family members into their respective safe seat constituencies.

So it might dent Labour's chances of winning marginal seats at the next General Election, but the breakaways, other than the odd one here and there, will never get elected at the next election.

In 1982, 28 MPs left Labour to form the SDP. Some 80,000 people joined the new party, of which 60% had never been in a political party before. So there were the activists and offices.

Most lost their seats in 1983. But I wonder if a hypothetical SDP2 of Remainers would do better, given that no Falklands Factor will save the Tories who are about to wreck on the rocks of Brexit.
 
In 1982, 28 MPs left Labour to form the SDP. Some 80,000 people joined the new party, of which 60% had never been in a political party before. So there were the activists and offices.

Most lost their seats in 1983. But I wonder if a hypothetical SDP2 of Remainers would do better, given that no Falklands Factor will save the Tories who are about to wreck on the rocks of Brexit.
A 'Falklands Factor' is giving far too much credence to why most of these 28 MP's lost their seats. Because if that was so, then the proportion of these 28 who would have lost their seats would have been similar, nay less, than the proportion of seats Labour lost in 1983.

As for the 80,000 who joined, I strongly suspect that only a small percentage of them would have translated into grassroots activists. How many Parliamentary constituencies did the SDP field candidates in 1983? Simply having a few activists does not automatically translate into offices and organisations even in those constituencies in which SDP candidates stood in 1983.

Besides, the Labour Leader Michael Foot had nowhere near the personal following that Corbyn has amongst Labour Party members, and that is an additional factor that counts against the breakaways chances of beating the official Labour Party candidates backed by the Labour membership, CLP's and their organisational infrastructures.
 
A 'Falklands Factor' is giving far too much credence to why most of these 28 MP's lost their seats. Because if that was so, then the proportion of these 28 who would have lost their seats would have been similar, nay less, than the proportion of seats Labour lost in 1983.

As for the 80,000 who joined, I strongly suspect that only a small percentage of them would have translated into grassroots activists. How many Parliamentary constituencies did the SDP field candidates in 1983? Simply having a few activists does not automatically translate into offices and organisations even in those constituencies in which SDP candidates stood in 1983.

Besides, the Labour Leader Michael Foot had nowhere near the personal following that Corbyn has amongst Labour Party members, and that is an additional factor that counts against the breakaways chances of beating the official Labour Party candidates backed by the Labour membership, CLP's and their organisational infrastructures.

As a matter of fact Labour only got 700k votes more than the Alliance. Labour lost 52 seats, while the Alliance made small gains overall. But FPTP meant the Tories won by a landslide.
 
Whether or not there is a breakaway party, I think we will have a Tory government for a long time to come.

Peter Hitchens was recently discussing how Theresa May is an utterly unimpressive and distinctly below-average politician aside from one fact - she has survived.

Hitchens feels that she continues to survive because British politics is in such a royal mess at the moment that nobody dares to change a thing, lest matters were to potentially spiral out of control even further - whether that’s the MPs, the Cabinet or the voters, nobody dares touch her.
 
Whether or not there is a breakaway party, I think we will have a Tory government for a long time to come.

Peter Hitchens was recently discussing how Theresa May is an utterly unimpressive and distinctly below-average politician aside from one fact - she has survived.

Hitchens feels that she continues to survive because British politics is in such a royal mess at the moment that nobody dares to change a thing, lest matters were to potentially spiral out of control even further - whether that’s the MPs, the Cabinet or the voters, nobody dares touch her.

May is a woeful Prime Minister. Labour should be 10+ points ahead by now.
 
Whether or not there is a breakaway party, I think we will have a Tory government for a long time to come.

Peter Hitchens was recently discussing how Theresa May is an utterly unimpressive and distinctly below-average politician aside from one fact - she has survived.

Hitchens feels that she continues to survive because British politics is in such a royal mess at the moment that nobody dares to change a thing, lest matters were to potentially spiral out of control even further - whether that’s the MPs, the Cabinet or the voters, nobody dares touch her.

Nobody wants to carry the can.

Thougth I think if we Hard Brexit, the resulting chaos and poverty will mean that Tories get hammered at the next GE.
 
Last edited:
As a matter of fact Labour only got 700k votes more than the Alliance. Labour lost 52 seats, while the Alliance made small gains overall. But FPTP meant the Tories won by a landslide.
That more or less backs up my assertion that the 'breakaways' (if they do have the guts to break away that is), bar a few here and there, will all lose their seats at the next General Election.

Basically, I fervently hope that the Labour Party Conference adopts mandatory re-selection rather than giving jobs for life in safe Labour seats to mostly those parachuted in by Blair and his cronies when they were in charge.
That way they will then be faced with a choice of either supporting most of the major policies of the Labour Party and not constantly back-stabbing their Party Leader (often at the behest of a certain foreign government), or putting their money where their mouth is and walking away to form their own party.
 
If Labour’s membership are to be fairly reflected in the PLP then reselection is the logical, and democratic, route to go down.

However, I’m not sure what it would mean for Labour in the polls though. On one hand you’d have a more united party however you’d also lose some decent MPs who may be considered not left wing enough to some.


That more or less backs up my assertion that the 'breakaways' (if they do have the guts to break away that is), bar a few here and there, will all lose their seats at the next General Election.

Basically, I fervently hope that the Labour Party Conference adopts mandatory re-selection rather than giving jobs for life in safe Labour seats to mostly those parachuted in by Blair and his cronies when they were in charge.
That way they will then be faced with a choice of either supporting most of the major policies of the Labour Party and not constantly back-stabbing their Party Leader (often at the behest of a certain foreign government), or putting their money where their mouth is and walking away to form their own party.
 
Last edited:
That more or less backs up my assertion that the 'breakaways' (if they do have the guts to break away that is), bar a few here and there, will all lose their seats at the next General Election.

Basically, I fervently hope that the Labour Party Conference adopts mandatory re-selection rather than giving jobs for life in safe Labour seats to mostly those parachuted in by Blair and his cronies when they were in charge.
That way they will then be faced with a choice of either supporting most of the major policies of the Labour Party and not constantly back-stabbing their Party Leader (often at the behest of a certain foreign government), or putting their money where their mouth is and walking away to form their own party.

Hmm, and as for the current Leader? Was it 550 times he voted against his own Party? Did he walk away and form his own party? Nobody called for his reselection.

Parachuting-in is bad form, of course. You want someone with links to the community representing it.

In other news, looks like a fundamental Tory split over Chequers is imminent.....
 
Hmm, and as for the current Leader? Was it 550 times he voted against his own Party? Did he walk away and form his own party? Nobody called for his reselection.
But he never threatened to either. Whereas the 'breakaways' are actively working behind the scenes to garner support and get sufficient numbers of others to join in order to make the attempt worthwhile.

Here's your own post in that regard.

Twitter traffic this morning alludes to some form of Labour split.

Good! - the Corbynistas will be rid of the hated Moderates and Blairites, and maybe a new centrist alliance will form. Everyone wins!
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Veteran MP Frank Field resigns Labour whip, saying the party's leadership has become "a force for anti-Semitism" <a href="https://t.co/eoozL8vNI5">https://t.co/eoozL8vNI5</a></p>— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) <a href="https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1035188581738983424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 30, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
The zionist attack on Labour grows day by day and gathers force with each coming moment...yet one of the country's most senior politician gets away by labelling thousands of Muslim women "bank robbers".
 
Big internal vote in the Labour Party today.

On whether or not to adopt the full IHRA definition of antisemitism.

Whatever the outcome, there will be further reverberations in my view.
 
Big internal vote in the Labour Party today.

On whether or not to adopt the full IHRA definition of antisemitism.

Whatever the outcome, there will be further reverberations in my view.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Labour fully adopts international definition and examples of antisemitism <a href="https://t.co/m7asxArJBi">https://t.co/m7asxArJBi</a></p>— Sky News (@SkyNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1037013830910525442?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">4 September 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Labour fully adopts international definition and examples of antisemitism <a href="https://t.co/m7asxArJBi">https://t.co/m7asxArJBi</a></p>— Sky News (@SkyNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1037013830910525442?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">4 September 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And yet the Zionist anti-Corbynites are still not happy and keep moving the goal posts

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Two steps forward and one step back. Why dilute the welcome adoption IN FULL of the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/IHRA?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#IHRA</a> definition of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Antisemitism?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Antisemitism</a> with an unnecessary qualification?</p>— Margaret Hodge (@margarethodge) <a href="https://twitter.com/margarethodge/status/1037023722983616512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">4 September 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">With greatest respect in July you said:<br><br>"I don't understand why we cannot just adopt the IHRA definition<br><br>If they don't think there is enough in the definition that allows people to criticise the Israeli government they can add those clauses" <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/confused?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#confused</a><a href="https://t.co/33phgwqdbC">https://t.co/33phgwqdbC</a> <a href="https://t.co/zVcDGCSy7q">pic.twitter.com/zVcDGCSy7q</a></p>— Cheese Please... (@____________UK_) <a href="https://twitter.com/____________UK_/status/1037029713087225858?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">4 September 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Survation are going for a 4% Labour lead at the moment (41%), with most of the other polls either marginal for the Tories or neck-and-neck. Not a bad effort from Corbyn considering that in the British press this summer it has essentially been him against the world.
 
Not a fan of the remoaner PM & govt and certainly not a fan of JC. sorry state that these two clowns are the "leaders" of the two main political parties.....
 
But he never threatened to either. Whereas the 'breakaways' are actively working behind the scenes to garner support and get sufficient numbers of others to join in order to make the attempt worthwhile.

Here's your own post in that regard.

I stand by it. What's your point?
 
Big internal vote in the Labour Party today.

On whether or not to adopt the full IHRA definition of antisemitism.

Whatever the outcome, there will be further reverberations in my view.

It's a positive step forward for them.
 
The zionist attack on Labour grows day by day and gathers force with each coming moment...yet one of the country's most senior politician gets away by labelling thousands of Muslim women "bank robbers".

Really? when was this?
 
Whether or not there is a breakaway party, I think we will have a Tory government for a long time to come.

Peter Hitchens was recently discussing how Theresa May is an utterly unimpressive and distinctly below-average politician aside from one fact - she has survived.

Hitchens feels that she continues to survive because British politics is in such a royal mess at the moment that nobody dares to change a thing, lest matters were to potentially spiral out of control even further - whether that’s the MPs, the Cabinet or the voters, nobody dares touch her.

Agree with that - we are in desperate need of a Thatcher.....
 
Why should anyone adopt the full IHRA definition of antisemitism? Do you know that under that definition, Nelson Mandela would be an antisemite?


I’m sure he wouldn’t. Anyway, Labour have adopted it. Now then can start rebuilding bridges with the Jewish community.
 
I’m sure he wouldn’t. Anyway, Labour have adopted it. Now then can start rebuilding bridges with the Jewish community.
Not if the likes of Margaret Hodge and other members of Labour Friends of Israel keep moving the goalposts.


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Two steps forward and one step back. Why dilute the welcome adoption IN FULL of the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/IHRA?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#IHRA</a> definition of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Antisemitism?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Antisemitism</a> with an unnecessary qualification?</p>— Margaret Hodge (@margarethodge) <a href="https://twitter.com/margarethodge/status/1037023722983616512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">4 September 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">With greatest respect in July you said:<br><br>"I don't understand why we cannot just adopt the IHRA definition<br><br>If they don't think there is enough in the definition that allows people to criticise the Israeli government they can add those clauses" <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/confused?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#confused</a><a href="https://t.co/33phgwqdbC">https://t.co/33phgwqdbC</a> <a href="https://t.co/zVcDGCSy7q">pic.twitter.com/zVcDGCSy7q</a></p>— Cheese Please... (@____________UK_) <a href="https://twitter.com/____________UK_/status/1037029713087225858?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">4 September 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> :ashwin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m sure he wouldn’t. Anyway, Labour have adopted it. Now then can start rebuilding bridges with the Jewish community.

Why wouldn't he? He labeled Israel and apartheid state, under the IHRA definition, labeling Israel a racist state = anti-semitism.

And building bridges with the Jewish community? When were they burned down? When Corbyn decided to show sympathy to the Palestinians? When Livingstone spoke the truth about the Nazis and their alliance with the zionists?

Like Hajo Meyer said, "antisemitism used when people did not like jews, now it's people the jews do not like."

If you are foolish enough to believe everything is antisemitism, I wish you would not vote for Labour. We require a nation of people with genuine intellect.
 
Whether Corbyn is actually anti Semitic or not is now irrelevant - perception is everything and the media (and some of his own colleagues) are hell bent on portraying him as a Jew hater.

He needs to change the narrative - he should either come out and apologise for his apparent past antisemitism and say something like "I used to believe in things that I no longer believe in so sorry" or he should come out and double down on it all and say "I don't hate Jews but I can't stand Israel and it's policies and if you don't like that position then boo hoo deal with it".

At the moment Corbyn offers a half hearted excuse for something that happened in the past and then a few days/weeks later another video or article is found. And we go through the media circus again.

In the meantime real issues like the Government's mishandling of brexit etc are not getting the attention they should be.

Corbyn should adopt the Norman Finklestein position on Israel and just shoot from the hip.
 
Why wouldn't he? He labeled Israel and apartheid state, under the IHRA definition, labeling Israel a racist state = anti-semitism.

Not according to the IHRA Definition - criticism of Israel in a similar way to criticism of other states is not antisemitic. Calling Israel an apartheid state is not antisemitic, any more than calling apartheid SA an apartheid state was racist against whites. So Mandela’s words would not be classed as antisemitic.

Now, if one was to criticise Israel’s right to exist, that would be antisemitic under the Definition.

And building bridges with the Jewish community? When were they burned down?
By the time the sixty Jewish deputies and rabbis said trust had broken down, at a guess.
If you are foolish enough to believe everything is antisemitism, I wish you would not vote for Labour. We require a nation of people with genuine intellect.

Isn’t that cutting off Labour’s nose to spite its face? Labour needs more votes to form a government. Doesn’t matter how bright the voters are. Accepting the Definition is a step towards winning the Jewish vote back.
 
These Orthodox Jews were at Labour Headquarters on Tuesday SUPPORTING Corbyn

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Channel 4 News showing BBC News how a Public Service Broadcaster should educate and inform political debate by featuring Orthodox Jews who support Corbyn and oppose IHRA<br>Here's the clip of Jews saying quite clearly 'Israel is a racist endeavour' <a href="https://t.co/dkMw9xApex">pic.twitter.com/dkMw9xApex</a></p>— LabourFanTV (@TheBirmingham6) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBirmingham6/status/1037098714970632192?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">4 September 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Regardless of various Tories and Zionists attempts to smear Corbyn he is going from strength to strength

the recent NEC elections saw the Left Slate win 9 out of 9 positions
the recent NPF (National Policy Forum) elections saw the Left Slate win 38 out of 42 positions
Labour membership has now grown to 540,000 members ! More than ALL the other Parties combined
I'll be attending Labour Conference in a few weeks as a Delegate and it's expected Mandatory Reselection will be voted on and passed which will mean the 100 or so Right Wing/Blairites like Chuka Umunna have a chance of being removed by the membership next time there is a General Election (prior to this it required a complicated opaque process where Unions and Affiliates could use their block voting power to frustrate members)

So don't believe everything you read in the lying #FakeNews media. Corbyn is on the up and Labour is positioning with its Manifesto, new policies, democracy and people powered movement to get into power and stay there for a decade or more as the Natural Party of Government.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Westminster voting intention:<br><br>LAB: 41% (+1)<br>CON: 37% (-1)<br>UKIP: 7% (+4)<br>LDEM: 6% (-4)<br>GRN: 2% (-) <br><br>via <a href="https://twitter.com/Survation?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Survation</a>, 31 Aug - 01 Sep<br>Chgs. w/ 07 Jul<br><br>Link: <a href="https://t.co/pLg0c3snOL">https://t.co/pLg0c3snOL</a></p>— Britain Elects (@britainelects) <a href="https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1037032301098610688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">4 September 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
^I heard that those guys represent the Neturei Karta, a fringe group of Ultras that are disavowed by the rest of the Jewish community.
 
IT doesn't matter. Destroys the Establishment and Media narrative that Corbyn is an 'existential threat' to Jews to see visible and obviously Jewish people supporting him. There are plenty of other Jewish groups who support Corbyn. The so-called 'mainstream' organisations are as representative of Jewry as the Tories are of Britain.
 
Regardless of various Tories and Zionists attempts to smear Corbyn he is going from strength to strength

the recent NEC elections saw the Left Slate win 9 out of 9 positions
the recent NPF (National Policy Forum) elections saw the Left Slate win 38 out of 42 positions
Labour membership has now grown to 540,000 members ! More than ALL the other Parties combined
I'll be attending Labour Conference in a few weeks as a Delegate and it's expected Mandatory Reselection will be voted on and passed which will mean the 100 or so Right Wing/Blairites like Chuka Umunna have a chance of being removed by the membership next time there is a General Election (prior to this it required a complicated opaque process where Unions and Affiliates could use their block voting power to frustrate members)

So don't believe everything you read in the lying #FakeNews media. Corbyn is on the up and Labour is positioning with its Manifesto, new policies, democracy and people powered movement to get into power and stay there for a decade or more as the Natural Party of Government.

Whether Umunna and others are deselected will rather depend on their CLPs. I think Frank Field could retain his seat as an Independent Labour MP as he had strong voter support built up over decades.

I think the Labour right know that the Party is lost to them. They have to decide whether to split and form SDP2 or maybe take over the Lib Dem infrastructure.

I hope you enjoy Conference @s28.
 
Last edited:
Surely Umuna will go. More faces than the town hall clock that bloke.
 
The last MP who resigned Labour and stood as an Independent was that dirty old man Simon Danczuk.

His votes went down from 20,000+ to less than 1,000

i.e. 95%+ of the votes he got were due to wearing a Labour rosette nothing to with his 'personal' appeal

The Independent had an article with polling suggesting most voters don't vote for individuals they vote based on paltforms, values, manifestos, leaders etc the individual candidate comes way down the list

Frank Field is absolutely detested on Merseyside having written in The S** newspaper despite their lies and slurs on Hillsborough / Liverpool FC fans
 
There is more of a cult of personality in American politics, for example Clinton v Trump was not about the Democrats or the Republicans or anything else in particular, it was about two oldies duking it out.

In Britain meanwhile you are absolutely right - a lot of people would vote for a chimpanzee if it was wearing a Labour rosette and the other bunch of people would choose a tortoise if it was wearing a Tory rosette, the number of actual swing / floating voters is much smaller (but crucial).
 
There is more of a cult of personality in American politics, for example Clinton v Trump was not about the Democrats or the Republicans or anything else in particular, it was about two oldies duking it out.

In Britain meanwhile you are absolutely right - a lot of people would vote for a chimpanzee if it was wearing a Labour rosette and the other bunch of people would choose a tortoise if it was wearing a Tory rosette, the number of actual swing / floating voters is much smaller (but crucial).

Ummuna is my MP, I voted Labour not Ummuna. If he was deselected, he won't be getting re-elected, either as an independent or from a new party.
 
Regardless of various Tories and Zionists attempts to smear Corbyn he is going from strength to strength

So don't believe everything you read in the lying #FakeNews media. Corbyn is on the up and Labour is positioning with its Manifesto, new policies, democracy and people powered movement to get into power and stay there for a decade or more as the Natural Party of Government.

I am surprised to hear that, although the only news I read is The Times and that is obviously owned by Murdoch. I am sick of it to be honest, costs too much, but it's the only paper which is available in a decent format for tablets.
 
There is more of a cult of personality in American politics, for example Clinton v Trump was not about the Democrats or the Republicans or anything else in particular, it was about two oldies duking it out.

In Britain meanwhile you are absolutely right - a lot of people would vote for a chimpanzee if it was wearing a Labour rosette and the other bunch of people would choose a tortoise if it was wearing a Tory rosette, the number of actual swing / floating voters is much smaller (but crucial).

Tories will never win in Hackney, Labour will never win in Hendon.

But there are exceptions.

The Lib Dems took a ward from UKIP because their candidate was personally highly regarded. Sadly he died and the ward went to the Tories as UKIP did not stand.

On a constituency scale David Penhaligon went from third place to take Truro from Labour not because he was a Liberal but because he was David Penhaligon, Cornishman of the people. That’s going back a bit, but it shows that personalities can triumph over party politics.

So it can depend on the constituency and local factors.
 
Not according to the IHRA Definition - criticism of Israel in a similar way to criticism of other states is not antisemitic. Calling Israel an apartheid state is not antisemitic, any more than calling apartheid SA an apartheid state was racist against whites. So Mandela’s words would not be classed as antisemitic.

Now, if one was to criticise Israel’s right to exist, that would be antisemitic under the Definition.

By the time the sixty Jewish deputies and rabbis said trust had broken down, at a guess.


Isn’t that cutting off Labour’s nose to spite its face? Labour needs more votes to form a government. Doesn’t matter how bright the voters are. Accepting the Definition is a step towards winning the Jewish vote back.

The IHRA definition states and I quote "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."

Apartheid is a racist endeavour, to deny Israel's apartheid is not only nonsensical, it is plain stupid. So, to claim that Israel has racist policies or apartheid policies, in fact Mandela stated he actually identified with the PLO in their struggle, something labeled by many in the west as a terrorist organisation, would mean than he is an antisemite.

In fact, almost every clause in the IHRA definition is abhorrent to the ideas of political, press and intellectual freedom.

For example: "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations."

What if there was a Jewish individual or a group with such ideas, are we now not allowed to speak about in political opposition? Could you imagine Muslims in Britain demanding the same?

Heck, the IHRA is so inconsistent and self conscious...and in all honesty, knows the atrocities their great nation Israel commits that it even has this clause: "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."

The contradictions throughout would be funny if they were not so dangerous.
 
Jews reject IHRA
The author of the IHRA definition rejects it
Leading QC's/Judges reject IHRA
Neither the Tory Party nor BBC have adopted it

Yet Labour have been forced to adopt it? Can only be seen as an attempt to stifle debate on Israel because Labour have a leader who is Pro-Palestine

The grass-roots will not stand for this and an indication of the feeling was last nights Vote of No Confidence in Christian Zionist Gavin Shuker of Luton and Labour Friend of Israel Joan Ryan in Enfield

I expect to see Mandatory Reselection agreed at Labour Conference and the membership to rise up and clear out the cancer that is Labour Friends of Israel from the Parliamentary Labour Party
 
Even Bliar has admitted defeat.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Tony Blair doubts Labour can be 'taken back by moderates' <a href="https://t.co/ju5gjmNtNQ">https://t.co/ju5gjmNtNQ</a></p>— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1037928825722740743?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 7, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
The purge has begun.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Another moderate and Corbyn critic <a href="https://twitter.com/gavinshuker?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@gavinshuker</a> has also just lost a confidence vote tonight. That’s 4 Labour MPs in total now, after Hoey and Field. The purge has begun.</p>— Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) <a href="https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1037846358902927360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 6, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
How does deselection work in the Labour Party? What are the steps
 
I'm a Labour member, on the Exec Committee of my CLP, Delegate to Conference and I have hardly any idea. IT's basically an opaque process which requires , a major widespread negative campaign which has to win over lots of faceless Unions and Affiliates who wield block votes.

The Open Selection movement will move to OMOV One Member One Vote so will make things more transparent and create more positive campaigns allowing a MP/Prospective candidate to be selected who is more representative of their own Constituency.

Michael Walker talks a lot of sense here
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XRCfjNUoAsE" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
About reselection - I don't understand why MPs should have a god given right to keep their seats for decades.

Surely an MP must be accountable to their local members ?
 
Labour party members need to bite the bullet on reselection. Being a Labour MP cannot be a sinecure granted for life irrespective of behaviour. The party is plainly dysfunctional, and it is so because the large majority of MPs are totally removed from the views of the membership. There are only two ways to resolve this. Either the MPs will have to leave parliament or the members will have to leave the party. There is no coherent party at present.

The Blairite Labour MPs have painted themselves into a corner by their decision to brand Jeremy Corbyn as personally a racist and an anti-semite. If I was in a party led by a racist and anti-semite, I would leave the party. The idea that they can continue as members of parliament for the party while expressing such views about the leader is a nonsense. But they do not wish to leave, because they would lose their comfy jobs. All of the right wing Labour MPs realise they would never win an election on their own account, without Labour Party support. It would be hilarious if not so serious, that they claim Frank Field can resign the Labour whip but this does not mean leave the party, and that he must still be the Labour Party candidate at the next election!

Their hope is twofold. Firstly, that the charges of anti-semitism against Corbyn will be widely believed and lead to a drastic drop in public support which will force Corbyn out. This is not happening. The public realise that the charges of anti-semitism are false and based on a definition of the word which simply means critic of Israel. Other than the normal polling malaise which follows any split in a party, there is no drastic plunge in support for Labour of the kind which would definitely follow if the public thought the party were led by an anti-semite.

To put it another way, either 40% of the public are anti-semites, or the public do not take these accusations seriously.

The Blairites other hope is that, by the Labour Party adopting the IHRA’s malicious definition of anti-semitism as embracing criticism of Israel, they will manage through legal action to force Jeremy Corbyn’s expulsion from the Labour Party. This attempt to use the British Establishment to circumvent party democracy is extraordinary.

By bringing things to this pitch, the Blairites have made compromise impossible. Either Corbyn and most of the members will have to go, or the Blairite MPs will.

Something must give. That is why I urge everybody who is in the Labour Party to take action today to push for mandatory reselection of MPs. The matter is urgent, and no party can resist the united force of its members for long.


https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/new-labours-irrational-adoration-of-thatcher/
 
Umunna’s new “Call off the dogs” speech has been leaked.... He really should just join the Lib Dems along with his faux-Tory counterpart Anna Soubry
 
About reselection - I don't understand why MPs should have a god given right to keep their seats for decades.

That’s rather down to the constituency electorate.

Surely an MP must be accountable to their local members ?

Nope.

Though it would make things difficult at re-election time if the MP falls out with the constituency party chair and councillors and the activists. The local party could put up another candidate for the seat, or just refuse to cooperate with the sitting MP. Without the local party infrastructure, the MP would probably not get re-elected.
 
The IHRA definition states and I quote "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."

Apartheid is a racist endeavour, to deny Israel's apartheid is not only nonsensical, it is plain stupid. So, to claim that Israel has racist policies or apartheid policies, in fact Mandela stated he actually identified with the PLO in their struggle, something labeled by many in the west as a terrorist organisation, would mean than he is an antisemite.

In fact, almost every clause in the IHRA definition is abhorrent to the ideas of political, press and intellectual freedom.

For example: "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations."

What if there was a Jewish individual or a group with such ideas, are we now not allowed to speak about in political opposition? Could you imagine Muslims in Britain demanding the same?

Heck, the IHRA is so inconsistent and self conscious...and in all honesty, knows the atrocities their great nation Israel commits that it even has this clause: "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."

The contradictions throughout would be funny if they were not so dangerous.

You’re confusing the concept of the state of Israel with some of its actions.

Mandela never denied the right of Israel to exist, therefore his statement was not antisemitic under the Definition. He criticised an action of that state.
 
Umunna’s new “Call off the dogs” speech has been leaked.... He really should just join the Lib Dems along with his faux-Tory counterpart Anna Soubry

Umunna is a Blairite, and therefore an authoritarian, so would not fit well with the Lib Dems.

Soubry is a liberal and would fit better.

I think there will be a loose aggregate of Lib Dem MP plus Labour and Tory refugees sitting on top of the grassroots liberal / Remain movement proposed by Sir Vince Cable, rather than a reinforced Lib Dem presence in Westminster.
 
The “People’s Vote Party” then - a friendly pile-on of all the foulest and flip-floppiest politicians from the House.


In other political news, UKIP is currently reviewing a membership application for Tommy Robinson.
 
The “People’s Vote Party” then - a friendly pile-on of all the foulest and flip-floppiest politicians from the House.


In other political news, UKIP is currently reviewing a membership application for Tommy Robinson.

What you call foul and flip-floppy are the ones I would vote for - the moderate and considering, Remainers, who take positions based on evidence rather than right or left dogma.
 
Even Bliar has admitted defeat.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Tony Blair doubts Labour can be 'taken back by moderates' <a href="https://t.co/ju5gjmNtNQ">https://t.co/ju5gjmNtNQ</a></p>— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1037928825722740743?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 7, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Agree with TB...and thats a rarity... :)
 
You’re confusing the concept of the state of Israel with some of its actions.

Mandela never denied the right of Israel to exist, therefore his statement was not antisemitic under the Definition. He criticised an action of that state.

You are confusing plain English. The IHRA makes no distinction between the racist laws of its country and the right of it to exist. Israel can exist but not with its current laws. To stop any debate on that is opposing the very political freedoms you claim to uphold.

I ask you again, if Muslims brought forward similar rules, would you agree?
 
What you call foul and flip-floppy are the ones I would vote for - the moderate and considering, Remainers, who take positions based on evidence rather than right or left dogma.

None of these sorts can be trusted. They will hop into bed with anyone in any party if it makes Parliament a cosier working environment and advances their own career.

I am not a huge fan of Corbyn and McDonnell (on the hard left) nor Rees-Mogg and Farage (on the hard right), but at least they are principled men who express their views clearly and stand by their beliefs.
 
None of these sorts can be trusted. They will hop into bed with anyone in any party if it makes Parliament a cosier working environment and advances their own career.

I am not a huge fan of Corbyn and McDonnell (on the hard left) nor Rees-Mogg and Farage (on the hard right), but at least they are principled men who express their views clearly and stand by their beliefs.

Farage is principled? In which way?

And what is this obsession with hard left, hard right...look at the policies. Corbyn and his staff are slowly coming up with policies that would better suit this country, its people, its economics, its schools, hospitals, old and young and all you can do is place labels?
 
You are confusing plain English. The IHRA makes no distinction between the racist laws of its country and the right of it to exist. Israel can exist but not with its current laws. To stop any debate on that is opposing the very political freedoms you claim to uphold.

I am elucidating into plainer English. If you are unable or unwilling to discern the difference between criticism of the concept of something and criticising the actions that something takes, we cannot continue with this.

Surely you understand the difference between the inherent right of a person to exist and the right of society to judge him for crimes he may commit?


I ask you again, if Muslims brought forward similar rules, would you agree?

Which actual Muslim state are these hypothetical Muslims bringing forward their hypothetical rules on? Pakistan perhaps? Of course I believe Pakistan has the right to exist, but I would not be racist or Islamophobic for criticising Pakistan for oppressing some hypothetical minority.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
None of these sorts can be trusted. They will hop into bed with anyone in any party if it makes Parliament a cosier working environment and advances their own career.

I am not a huge fan of Corbyn and McDonnell (on the hard left) nor Rees-Mogg and Farage (on the hard right), but at least they are principled men who express their views clearly and stand by their beliefs.

I disagree. Cable, Umunna and Soubry are in power to make people’s lives better - ideology is of secondary importance. They will compromise their beliefs to enhance the wealth and freedom of the most people possible.

Corbyn, McDonnell, Rees-Mogg and Farage are zealots whose ideas are more important to them than people. They will impoverish the wealth and freedom of most of us to make their ideas real.
 
I am elucidating into plainer English. If you are unable or unwilling to discern the difference between criticism of the concept of something and criticising the actions that something takes, we cannot continue with this.

Surely you understand the difference between the inherent right of a person to exist and the right of society to judge him for crimes he may commit?


[quite]
I ask you again, if Muslims brought forward similar rules, would you agree?

Which actual Muslim state are these hypothetical Muslims bringing forward their hypothetical rules on? Pakistan perhaps? Of course I believe Pakistan has the right to exist, but I would not be racist or Islamophobic for criticising Pakistan for oppressing some hypothetical minority.[/QUOTE]

Where in the IHRA definition does it make a distinction between the concept of a nation and its laws? Plus what do you even mean by some abstract idea of concept of a country? A country is defined by its people, its laws, its customs, most of which are geared towards, IN Israel's case, dehumanising Palestinians because of their religion and ethnicity. No one should be forced into paying lip service to such a country and claiming it has every right to exist. No nation such as this does, unless changes are made and justice is brought forth.

People like you have to make logical jumps to try and justify your ideas..concept of a country, what a useless phrase. Heck, even Ben Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel understood the wrong they had done and yet you wana sit here and talk about concepts.

Plus, this whole antisemitism saga was brought into the spotlight by Jonathan Sacks, a man who turned up to anti Muslim rallies in Israel, where chants of "death to Palestinians" and "death to Muslims were regularly" chanted as they intimidated and rioted their way through Muslim areas. So before you think you're some intellectual on the forefront of liberalism, actually look into these things.
 
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

I would suggest reading Stephen Bush's excellent article in the New Statesman.

It's far harder to remove Labour candidates than Tory or Lib Dem candidates. The bar to trigger a reselection is ridiculously high.

The current system is that a Labour candidate is elected by members of constituency wards and affiliated branches (unions, socialist societies etc).

However the votes of members and affiliated groups count equally - despite the fact there's no limit on these affiliated groups. They sometimes don't even ballot their members !

Even the Tories have a more democratic system of electing candidates. Let's move towards primaries where anyone be it Frank Field or Chris Leslie can make their case.
 
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

I would suggest reading Stephen Bush's excellent article in the New Statesman.

It's far harder to remove Labour candidates than Tory or Lib Dem candidates. The bar to trigger a reselection is ridiculously high.

The current system is that a Labour candidate is elected by members of constituency wards and affiliated branches (unions, socialist societies etc).

However the votes of members and affiliated groups count equally - despite the fact there's no limit on these affiliated groups. They sometimes don't even ballot their members !

Even the Tories have a more democratic system of electing candidates. Let's move towards primaries where anyone be it Frank Field or Chris Leslie can make their case.

That’s interesting [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION]. Stephen Bush writes very well.

The Lib Dems choose a candidate or candidates by subcommittee and tell HQ, who approve it turn down the candidate. Then there is a meeting of the constituency members and either a hustings or a rubber stamping.

To remove a candidate or MP the local members would be invited to a special general meeting and a vote taken. I can’t imagine that happening, though.
 
Which actual Muslim state are these hypothetical Muslims bringing forward their hypothetical rules on? Pakistan perhaps? Of course I believe Pakistan has the right to exist, but I would not be racist or Islamophobic for criticising Pakistan for oppressing some hypothetical minority.

Where in the IHRA definition does it make a distinction between the concept of a nation and its laws? Plus what do you even mean by some abstract idea of concept of a country? A country is defined by its people, its laws, its customs, most of which are geared towards, IN Israel's case, dehumanising Palestinians because of their religion and ethnicity. No one should be forced into paying lip service to such a country and claiming it has every right to exist. No nation such as this does, unless changes are made and justice is brought forth.

People like you have to make logical jumps to try and justify your ideas..concept of a country, what a useless phrase. Heck, even Ben Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel understood the wrong they had done and yet you wana sit here and talk about concepts.

Plus, this whole antisemitism saga was brought into the spotlight by Jonathan Sacks, a man who turned up to anti Muslim rallies in Israel, where chants of "death to Palestinians" and "death to Muslims were regularly" chanted as they intimidated and rioted their way through Muslim areas. So before you think you're some intellectual on the forefront of liberalism, actually look into these things.

We have been discussing whether Mandela’s comment about apartheid in Israel is antisemitic under the IHRA Definition.

I have explained that it is not. Had Mandela called into question Israel’s right to exit - invalidating the very concept of the country - he would have made an antisemitic statement according to the Definition. But he did not. He criticised the behaviour of Israel’s government. That is not antisemitic under the Definition, as long as Israel is not held to a higher standard of behaviour than other countries.

What Ben Gurion and Lord Sacks may have said said are straw men arguments in this regard as they are not Mandela.
 
We have been discussing whether Mandela’s comment about apartheid in Israel is antisemitic under the IHRA Definition.

I have explained that it is not. Had Mandela called into question Israel’s right to exit - invalidating the very concept of the country - he would have made an antisemitic statement according to the Definition. But he did not. He criticised the behaviour of Israel’s government. That is not antisemitic under the Definition, as long as Israel is not held to a higher standard of behaviour than other countries.

What Ben Gurion and Lord Sacks may have said said are straw men arguments in this regard as they are not Mandela.

No, we're discussing the IHRA definition, I just brought up Mandela as an example. He outright supported a group the Israelis labelled as a terrorist organisation. In this day and age, he would be labelled much worse than just an antisemite. You can keep trying to make illogical leaps of fantasy if you like to avoid that.

Now, onto the IHRA, I raised several points about it, kindly answer them.

Edit: Mentioning Sacks is not a strawman, it is a pertinent point because he has been chief enforcer of the anti-Corbyn brigade in this argument, yet he is a man who is a racist, bigot, Islamophobe or whatever other appropriate term one wants to use. For the media to use his word,s his ideas etc without mentioning his political, far right extremists affiliations is the cornerstone of propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Isn’t that cutting off Labour’s nose to spite its face? Labour needs more votes to form a government. Doesn’t matter how bright the voters are. Accepting the Definition is a step towards winning the Jewish vote back.
'Winning the Jewish vote' doesn't matter an iota considering the relatively miniscule number of Jewish voters. However, not antagonising the all powerful Jewish lobby is something else completely. Being backed by Money, Power and those who control the mainstream media is the only way to win elections. And slowly but surely, Corbyn is being forced to accept this reality.
 
Corbyn is the one person who hasn't bent to that.

The NEC made the decision and it's made up of lots of 'unelected' reps such as Trade Union leaders and other people unaccountable to Labour Party members. Of about 36+ positions only 9 are directed elected by members. Corbyn got shivved by some so-called left wingers. Those who went against members interests will be voted out or forced out but it's up to Union memberships to deal with their leaders/reps.
 
No, we're discussing the IHRA definition, I just brought up Mandela as an example. He outright supported a group the Israelis labelled as a terrorist organisation. In this day and age, he would be labelled much worse than just an antisemite. You can keep trying to make illogical leaps of fantasy if you like to avoid that.

Now, onto the IHRA, I raised several points about it, kindly answer them.

Edit: Mentioning Sacks is not a strawman, it is a pertinent point because he has been chief enforcer of the anti-Corbyn brigade in this argument, yet he is a man who is a racist, bigot, Islamophobe or whatever other appropriate term one wants to use. For the media to use his word,s his ideas etc without mentioning his political, far right extremists affiliations is the cornerstone of propaganda.

You brought up the example of Mandela and I explained that his statements were not antisemitic under the Definition, because he criticised was Israel did and not its inherent right to exist, and did not hold it to a higher standard that other governments.

What are your other points about the Definition again?
 
'Winning the Jewish vote' doesn't matter an iota considering the relatively miniscule number of Jewish voters. However, not antagonising the all powerful Jewish lobby is something else completely. Being backed by Money, Power and those who control the mainstream media is the only way to win elections. And slowly but surely, Corbyn is being forced to accept this reality.

I think it matters *an* iota, given the very close polls. I am sure Labour don’t want Jewish voters switching to other parties in marginal seats.

Neither do I think the Jewish lobby is *all-powerful* - that smacks of conspiracy thinking.
 
I think it matters *an* iota, given the very close polls. I am sure Labour don’t want Jewish voters switching to other parties in marginal seats.

Neither do I think the Jewish lobby is *all-powerful* - that smacks of conspiracy thinking.
There are approx 250,000 people of the Jewish faith in the UK. Being generous in terms of those who are likely to vote (ie excluding those below the voting age, and those who don't vote at all) makes around 150,000 Jewish voters.

Overall, the Jewish population is evenly split between Labour (31%) and the Conservatives (30%), with 11% favouring the Liberal Democrats, 8% other parties and 15% undecided at the time of fieldwork.

http://www.brin.ac.uk/2010/political-leanings-of-britains-jews/
That equates to roughly 45,000 Jewish voters who would normally vote Labour. You seriously trying to say that all of this mass coverage throughout the summer of alleged anti-semitism in the Labour Party is over 45,000 Jewish Labour voters (less actually since not all British Jews agree with the storm cooked up) making a significant difference to the election prospects of Labour winning a General Election?

If you truly believe that the MP's who are members of Labour Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel etc. is purely down to the desire to attract Jewish voters, and nothing to do with the power of the Jewish lobby then I guess you're also likely to believe that the power of the Jewish lobby in the USA and the power of AIPAC is purely down to numbers of Jewish voters, and nothing to do with money, power and influence in American politics.
 
You brought up the example of Mandela and I explained that his statements were not antisemitic under the Definition, because he criticised was Israel did and not its inherent right to exist, and did not hold it to a higher standard that other governments.

What are your other points about the Definition again?

Go back up, read. You haven't even understood the simple line I posted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are approx 250,000 people of the Jewish faith in the UK. Being generous in terms of those who are likely to vote (ie excluding those below the voting age, and those who don't vote at all) makes around 150,000 Jewish voters.


That equates to roughly 45,000 Jewish voters who would normally vote Labour. You seriously trying to say that all of this mass coverage throughout the summer of alleged anti-semitism in the Labour Party is over 45,000 Jewish Labour voters (less actually since not all British Jews agree with the storm cooked up) making a significant difference to the election prospects of Labour winning a General Election?

If you truly believe that the MP's who are members of Labour Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel etc. is purely down to the desire to attract Jewish voters, and nothing to do with the power of the Jewish lobby then I guess you're also likely to believe that the power of the Jewish lobby in the USA and the power of AIPAC is purely down to numbers of Jewish voters, and nothing to do with money, power and influence in American politics.

I guarantee Robert will come back with a completely irrelevant point.
 
Go back up, read. You haven't even understood the simple line I posted.

By "Go back up, read", I assume that you mean:

Where in the IHRA definition does it make a distinction between the concept of a nation and its laws?

It doesn't make that distiction. It gives various distinct examples of antisemitism. It is antisemitic under the Definition to question the very concept of the state of Israel, its very right to exit. It is not antisemitic to question what Israel does, as long as Israel is not held to a higher standard than other nations.

Have you read the Definition? I'm thinking you haven't, because you seem to have some misconceptions about its scope.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top